â€˜Pakistan views India as the perpetual enemy and the US as an unfaithful allyâ€™

Itâ€™s a rare opportunity to come across an American diplomat who understands the South Asian culture and speaks fluent Urdu and Hindi. Former ambassador Teresita C. Schaffer, 66, is one of those rare individuals who are not only aware of the cultural nuances of the Indo-Pak region, but happens to be an elegant speaker of Hindi and Urdu. An ex-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and South Asia, Schaffer, in her 30-year diplomatic career, has served as the US ambassador to Sri Lanka and worked at diplomatic missions in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. She has authored Pakistanâ€™s Future and US Policy Options (2004) and India at the Crossroads: Confronting the Challenge of HIV/AIDS (2004). One of her popular books she co-authored with her husband Howard B. Schaffer, also a former US ambassador, is How Pakistan Negotiates with the United States.

A widely respected expert on South Asia, Ambassador Schaffer spoke exclusively with Dawn.com about Pakistanâ€™s negotiating style with the United States.

Q. The United State and Pakistan have had three â€˜marriagesâ€™ and two â€˜divorcesâ€™. Are the interests that lead to an eventful marriage and factors which caused divorce always the same or do they keep changing with every new partnership?

A. The immediate impetus for the three marriages came from factors external to Pakistan such as the Cold War and Afghanistan. What caused the two divorces is different.

The first divorce came in 1965 during the Pakistan-India war when Pakistan used US-supplied weapons which Washington had warned were not supposed to be used against each other.

Pakistanâ€™s nuclear program caused the second divorce. In the 1980s, the US restored a large aid program to Pakistan, but to get the aid through Congress, it also had to pass the Pressler Amendment. In 1990s, the US could no longer certify that Pakistan possessed a nuclear explosive device because of which its assistance had to be cut-off.

In both cases, divorce was the culmination of Pakistanâ€™s unwillingness to accept US terms and conditions.

Q. What would you describe as the striking findings of your study about Pakistanâ€™s negotiating style with the United States?

A. There are three big influences on Pakistanâ€™s negating style with the United States. The first is Pakistanâ€™s view of its place in the world with India as the perpetual enemy and the US as an unfaithful ally. The second is the supreme importance of personal connections in the Pakistani culture. The third influence is the complicated structure of the government and complex relationship between the military, civil administration and the bureaucracy.

Pakistan tries to put the United States on a guilt trip and has been remarkably successful in doing that.

Q. The United States has historically personalised rather than institutionalise relations with Pakistan. How much has that benefitted both the countries?

A. Both the sides have personalised the relationship. Without some degree of personalisation you are not going to get anywhere with a Pakistani leader. But by allowing the personal relationship to substitute for an institutional one, the United States makes itself vulnerable to the guilt trip.

Q. Do you see a dichotomy between the objectives of a US-Pakistan strategic alliance and expectations of both the countries from each other?

A. Yes. This is the real challenge of US-Pakistan relationship. The assumption during all three alliances was that our strategic interests were the same. In fact, they had some points in common, but were not the same. The key to these differences in each case has been India.

For Pakistanis, India is the long-term existential threat. For the United States, India is not an enemy. In Afghanistan, Pakistanâ€™s prime objective is to minimize Indian influence but the US goal is to minimise the al Qaeda influence. These are not the same.

Q. How much is the growing US-India alliance going to influence US-Pakistan ties?

A. I have no doubt that the US-India relationship makes a lot of Pakistanis uncomfortable. They see this as inconsistent with US-Pakistan relationship. If you had a real economic revival in Pakistan at rates comparable with India, you would see the balance of Pakistanâ€™s interests changing in such a way that the US-India relationship would seem less threatening to Pakistan.

Q. Why has the United States rephrased the term â€œIndo-Pakâ€ and categorised Pakistan into the newly coined term â€œAf-Pakâ€?

A. I hate the term Af-Pak. It sounds demeaning in Pakistan. The term and the bureaucratic structure are the products of the decision by President Obama and Secretary Clinton to bring in Richard Holbrooke as the envoy.

Richard Holbrooke was a man of enormous talent. I think the term was his because he meant you canâ€™t only talk about Afghanistan and forget Pakistan. He was trying to convey the message that Afghanistan was sitting next door to Pakistan.

There was a lot of speculation whether Ambassador Holbrookeâ€™s mandate should include India. From the American point of view, the decision not to include India was correct, because a special envoy whose chief responsibility is Pakistan cannot effectively broker with India.

Q. Why is the United States reluctant to play the role of a mediator between India and Pakistan on Kashmir dispute?

A. The US believes that without the strong support of both India and Pakistan no such effort could succeed. India hates the idea of third-party intervention. The US has urged both countries to work things out directly on their various problems, including Kashmir.

Q. In your book, you mention the element of lies in diplomatic relations. Do both the countries lie to each other? What have been the biggest historic lies told to each other?

A. In American court rooms when you are sworn in as a witness, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth or nothing but the truth. â€œNothing but the truthâ€ is the easiest standard to meet while â€œthe whole truthâ€ is the hardest standard to meet. Neither of the governments has met the standard of telling the whole truth. We have, on a number of occasions, withheld things from one and other.

Sometimes, Pakistan has also fallen short of the standard of â€œnothing but the truth.â€ For example, when President Musharraf came to the United States and was asked about Daniel Pearl, he said he was â€œsureâ€ that Pearl was alive. Afterwards, it became clear that Daniel Pearl was already dead and it seemed likely that Musharraf actually knew this. He may have considered that as the right thing to do in protecting Pakistanâ€™s security interests.

We need to understand the impact lies have on both sides. An American official who believes he has been lied to takes this as a real insult to his intelligence and friendship with the other side.

Having lived in Pakistan, I would say it is almost impossible that no one in the army knew that Osama bin Laden was living in Abbottabad.

Q. Are there any phases in the US-Pakistan relation where you find Pakistan successfully influencing American policies?

A. Yes. Pakistan achieved some of its objectives by applying American cultural traits. One instance is Pakistanâ€™s success in 1999 in obtaining a refund of the money it had paid for F-16 aircraft. The Pakistani diplomats based their argument to the United States on the concept of fairness â€”- which is very important in US cultureâ€” and hired a lawyer to file a lawsuit against the US government. Everyone accuses the Americans of being overly legalistic but this time the Pakistanis turned the tables. They used their understanding of US procedure and culture to obtain a result that was very important.

Q. Which US government in the history would you rate as the most Pakistan-friendly?

A. There are a lot of governments which have done really important things for Pakistan. The whole China connection for President Richard Nixon was something that fit in his strategic framework. George W. Bush initiated the big aid program for Pakistan which was carried over by the Obama administration.

Q. What do you think are the causes of growing anti-Americanism in Pakistan?

A. Some anti-Americanism is the inevitable byproduct of the United States being the most powerful country in the world, which makes it a magnet for discontent. Anti-Americanism has become much stronger now because there is a widespread perception in the Islamic world and particularly in Pakistan that the Muslims are being treated with injustice by the west in general and the United States in particular.
This is intensified by the message that is being put out not just by the Islamic militant groups and right-wing parties but also by the government of Pakistan suggesting that Pakistanâ€™s present troubles are entirely the fault of the United States. I donâ€™t agree with that statement. I think frankly no country can blame its entire troubles on anybody else.

If enough important people in Pakistan pointing fingers at the United States for its domestic troubles then it becomes easier to believe that than to search for the roots of homegrown problems.

Q. Pakistanis complain that the Americans do not sufficiently acknowledge and appreciate their contributions in the war on terror.

A. The Americans value Pakistanâ€™s contributions but they also feel betrayed by some of the moves Pakistan is making particular by continuing the relationship with insurgent groups in Afghanistan which are killing American soldiers. Both sides have some reasons to complain that the other side is not respecting their sensitivities. In order to achieve an American policy that is in some sense more responsive to Pakistanâ€™s need, you also need a Pakistani policy that is more responsive to US needs.

Q. Will Pakistan and the US be able to avoid a third divorce this time?

A. I hope so. We have always tried to develop a strategic relationship in which the Americans and Pakistanis know that they are both together for long term. That is desirable but not feasible at the moment. A lot of damage has been done since the beginning of 2011. The fallout from the Raymond Davis case and the aftereffects of the bin Laden raid have left the army feeling embarrassed and the Americans feel betrayed. This is not a good recipe for both the sides embracing each other. What we need now is to have some smaller, more specific successes, and build on those. Perhaps the recent arrest of Al-Mauritani will be a good beginning.

How can US or China be an Ally to pakistan? If they cant live with their own blood in India and fight for land and property like children what is the chance that someone 15,000miles away will be a better ally? To destroy us they need to sleep with China and US, might as well be friends with us and there will be no problem.

How can US or China be an Ally to pakistan? If they cant live with their own blood in India and fight for land and property like children what is the chance that someone 15,000miles away will be a better ally? To destroy us they need to sleep with China and US, might as well be friends with us and there will be no problem.

Click to expand...

Like repel and unlike attract.

Pakistan is a temporary entity. The long term objective is to regain India and rule it like 'Mughals'. US and China want India to be sliced it smalled entities amiable to them. US may have started favouring India's existence as useful to oppose China. But US does not want the balance of power to change. In US calculations, China is balanced by India. India is balanced by Pakistan.

Excellent read- thanks for the post. The take away from me is that the relationship between Pakistan and US is one of needing each other, period - hence I don't see a complete walk away from each other.

But to add to the article - The relationship between India and US I wish would be more vigorous. India's constant " lamb" like policies need to be freed to take on the " tiger or is it elephant " image it likes to talk about but never portrays.

I also find it amusing when Pakistanis needle Indians on its close ties to the US citing how they were treated by the US. I've seen few Indians here fall for it- when the fact is the relationship between India and US is at Par, equal footing, of mutual security and economic interests - while Pakistan was and will always be the 'needy' in that relationship i.e. It needs aid , it needs arms , it's just needy- hence America looks at Pakistan as that child that will never be able to stand on its foot, sitting in a region it considers not only the hotbed of terrorism but now increasingly an important region given China's rise. America will not leave Afghanistan ever... it has a plum real estate in china's backyard.

But in regards to India, Americas economic interests are equally important as its security interests. Indians must see this positively and quit being such pacifists, afraid of " what if they think we are too pro America" image and dive into this relationship much more freely and aggressively. that is if you want to be a leader in this region , otherwise you will forever be enclosed and over shadowed by China. Starting point would be taking up the NATO offer on missile shield and getting the nuclear deal comeplted...

Pakistan is a temporary entity. The long term objective is to regain India and rule it like 'Mughals'. US and China want India to be sliced it smalled entities amiable to them. US may have started favouring India's existence as useful to oppose China. But US does not want the balance of power to change. In US calculations, China is balanced by India. India is balanced by Pakistan.

But in regards to India, Americas economic interests are equally important as its security interests. Indians must see this positively and quit being such pacifists, afraid of " what if they think we are too pro America" image and dive into this relationship much more freely and aggressively. that is if you want to be a leader in this region , otherwise you will forever be enclosed and over shadowed by China. Starting point would be taking up the NATO offer on missile shield and getting the nuclear deal comeplted...

Click to expand...

You sure talk some incessant bollocks.

No one is being pacifist when relations with US come into the picture. After all whom are we going to pacify? There's no USSR, Russia has extensive dealings with the Sammies, Chinese trade with them, Purelanders are their lapdogs. Whom are we trying to pacify?

India must view all its relationships realistically than positively. It's obvious that Americans are not engaging India out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any) or altruism or mushiness. There are cold calculated strategic aims in mind. This means they'll engage and discard anyone as per their convenience. India must do what's good by us and that does not necessarily include the bollocks that you have spewed above.

No one is being pacifist when relations with US come into the picture. After all whom are we going to pacify? There's no USSR, Russia has extensive dealings with the Sammies, Chinese trade with them, Purelanders are their lapdogs. Whom are we trying to pacify?

India must view all its relationships realistically than positively. It's obvious that Americans are not engaging India out of the goodness of their hearts (assuming there is any) or altruism or mushiness. There are cold calculated strategic aims in mind. This means they'll engage and discard anyone as per their convenience. India must do what's good by us and that does not necessarily include the bollocks that you have spewed above.

Click to expand...

let see India's overtly cautious approach with the US and its lack of wanting to take the reigns in Asia was what was being called " pacifist" .... - My take was directly not only taken from this article about India's lack of taking the reign in Asia and the US relationship more aggresievely... but in several articles written by foreign policy , defense think thanks and experts in this region. the bullocks I gave per you -- don't stink lad.